INDEPENDENT MEDICO LEGAL UNIT v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA
| Case Number | APPLICATION NO. 2 OF 2012 (ARISING FROM APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2011) - REVIEW |
| Summary |
The Applicant / Appellant had brought a Reference in the First Instance Division of the East African Court of Justice concerning the Respondents responsibility to investigate, prosecute, punish and sanction the perpetrators of the atrocities committed in the Mt. Elgon area of Kenya between 2006 and 2009 their compensation. A ruling on a preliminary objection raised by the Respondent was given on 29th June 2011 and being dissatisfied the Appellant lodged Appeal No. 1 of 2011.
On 15th March 2012, the Appellate Division dismissed the appeal and upheld the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent. In the current application, the Applicant/Appellant sought to re-open and review the Appellate Division’s judgment.
|
| Respondent | Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya |
| Complainant | Independent Medico Legal Unit |
| Date filed | |
| Countries | Kenya |
| Keyword | Error apparent on the face of the record , Glaring omission or a patent mistake , Grounds for review , Jurisdiction |
| Treaty Article | Article 30 , Article 35 A , Article 6 , Article 7 |
First Instance Judgment
| Verdict | |
| PDF document | |
| Date delivered | |
| Quorum | |
Appeal Judgment
| Verdict |
- The Appellate Division of this Court, just like the First Instance Division enjoys, in appropriate cases, the same authority and power to review its own judgments as the power of review set out in Article 35(3) extends to both Divisions of this Court.
- A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of error committed subordinate court. To qualify for review, an application needs to fulfil any or all the conditions specified in Article 35(3). The purpose of review is not to provide a back door method by which unsuccessful litigants can re-argue their cause. Review of a judgment will not be considered except where a glaring omission or a patent mistake or like grave error has crept into that judgment through judicial fallibility.However, parties are not permitted to begin fresh litigations because of new views they may entertain of the law of the case or new versions which they present as to what should be a proper apprehension by the Court of the legal result
- If a view held by the court in the original record is a possible one, it cannot be an error apparent on the face of the record even though another view (such as the ones canvassed by the Applicant) was also possible.
- The grounds adduced by the Applicant for this Court to review its judgment of 15th March 2012 could be good grounds for a further appeal but this is not provided for in the EAC Treaty. The application was therefore dismissed.
|
| PDF document | Download the decision as PDF
|
| Date delivered | March 1, 2013 |
| Quorum | |
